So, in order to solve one thing you find personally inconvenient, you extrapolate and assume that all others in your vicinity share your opinion. Now, I share your opinion that phone usage during a movie is rude. I don't share your opinion that a jammer is a valid solution, because it also constitutes something which is not only obnoxious, but illegal to boot. Furthermore, it's obnoxious to a larger amount of people, and it's difficult to control exactly who you affect with it. It is, in essence, untargeted. A phone, at the very least, can be used on mute underneath a coat, in order to check a pager or text messages. Better still, I could take my phone outside the theater and use it--but wait, you're still jamming it.
Before you decide to shove your opinions down another's throat, especially by advocating illegal measures and vigilantism, perhaps you should stop to consider the broader ramifications of your response, rather than just the bits you find convenient.
And I think Bennett Haselton is one of the most obnoxious human beings alive for submitting blog entries to the front page and using/. as his personal soapbox without doing it the right way (use your journal, link to it. story does not belong in summay.) But, despite the immense annoyance and mental pain this causes me (hyperbole...), it wouldn't justify shooting him, not even if he threw popcorn at me.
Citation needed. That would be a dramatic departure from every other report linked to so far. It would, in fact, make the shooting justified, where it currently appears to be completely unjustified.
Was skiing off-piste, lost his balance, and crashed. Speed was found to be not an issue, and the gear was also found to be not faulty. Moral of the story: don't push yourself past your limits, and if you do, expect to take the good with the bad. Practice in safe environments and work up to the riskier stuff. I'm a former competitive cyclist, and also a motorcyclist (and cage driver). But while I don't wear a helmet during normal cycling, non-race, you sure as hell won't find me on a motorcycle without a full face helmet.
I HAVE gone down at 25+ MPH, being a former competitive cyclist. I've also smacked my head and face off stuff, and I've got the ugly mug (stitches and dental work and scars) to prove it. And you know what? The primary cause of crashing is: lack of attention/recklessness. There have been virtually no situations in my lifetime where being more observant/less reckless would not have prevented the crash. I've yet to mangle a helmet, but I've sure crashed a lot. The real point of impact in most crashes, at reasonable speeds, on a bicycle, is your hands and elbows, not your head. I've also seen a guy wearing a helmet go off the side of a course; I've seen a guy slide under a guardrail. Both wore helmets. I think the guy who slid under the guard rail (40+ MPH downhill, in the rain, at Green Mountain Stage Race) died. I was too busy trying to keep up with the rest of the pack. The other guy, last I recall, he was being backboarded and medevac'd.
Moral of the story: a helmet does not eliminate your obligation to maintain situational awareness. A helmet will not magically save your life. Prudence and awareness will save your life more often than a helmet.
Amendment, I've been smacked in the head TWICE outside of a race. Had a guy open a car door right into my handlebars on the way home from work one night. Bike tipped up, edge of the car door banged me right down the middle of the face. Helmet wouldn't have helped much, if any. It'd be better to have protection for the things you actually injure during a crash (I've skinned my hands and arms I don't even know how many times...).
I (a former competitive cyclist) have been in many bicycle accidents. Never muffed up a helmet. My instinct when crashing forward is to duck and roll (harder to do when clipped in, that's how I snapped my collarbone during a race. Hit a mud patch, front wheel stuck, bike rotated around it, and slammed my head into the ground. But, I also wouldn't dive into a mud patch like that outside of a race...). The head is protected, at the cost of anything else being damaged. Arms up around the head. I've skinned everything else, but I've only smacked my head once (outside a race), and that was from slamming into a concrete barrier at night, going 20 MPH. It had been placed across a trail I frequented, and there was no warning about the new presence of this object. That one did injure my face (lots of stitches and some dental work), but a helmet wouldn't have done a damn thing--nothing covered by a helmet was so much as nicked. The bike was junk though...
Been smacked in the head with a car door, been backed into, crashed into a concrete block, flipped over many times, superman'd a couple times, nearly run off the road by a sherrif's van, and quite a few other incidents. Okay, full disclosure: I used to race (bicycles) competitively. But you know what's funny is that all the major accidents I've been in happened on the street--not at a race--where helmets aren't mandatory for adults here. The key factor in my not winding up more seriously injured (okay, I've snapped my collarbone, DURING a race) in most of these was paying attention. Luck plays a role, but not as large a role as being aware of your surroundings at all times. I was taught to always assume the people around you will do the stupidest possible thing and it's YOUR responsibility to avoid getting hit. I don't wear a helmet (used to during races, a requirement), not saying that should apply to everyone, but a helmet is not a necessary instrument to survive. It makes it easier for people who disregard their obligation to pay attention to survive. The people I've seen get seriously injured during cycling? Lack of attention or recklessness is the #1 cause. Going too fast on ice? Bad idea. Assuming you'll win vs a car, even if the law is on your side? Bad idea. Knowing what your skill level is and acting accordingly, while always maintaining 360 degree awareness? Good idea.
A filter removes a portion of something. You filter out things. Phone cameras don't use an RGB filter. That would defeat the point of having a camera. If we assume it takes 2 discrete filters to remove IR and UV, RGB filters would add another 3 (assuming we kept the same constraints, one per narrowly defined band, which we need not do in reality).
Would it cost more to manufacture a sensor which detects all of them? No. They generally do that just fine anyway. Hence the filters. Would it cost more to have specific sensor elements detect different bands, for a multi-megapixel sensor? Yes.
To Bennett: For fuck's sake, STOP POSTING BLOG ENTRIES ON THE FUCKING FRONT PAGE. USE YOUR JOURNAL. LINK TO IT.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Yeah, fuck you too, but this guy never listens. What an arrogant douchecock. The ONLY person who seems to get away with this BS. How many blowjobs did that cost you, samzenpus?
I think you should learn to use the filters, but you'd really be doing yourself a disservice. Anonymity is what allows people to post controversial opinions and hold debates on taboo subjects to the benefit of all. This may be a US-centric website, but we welcome all kinds. Not everyone shares your freedoms, or even agrees that you still have real freedom, when anonymity is a necessary cornerstore of free spech. More to the point, the fact that Slashdot is uncensored (in the sense that things are not removed wholesale unless they break the reading experience) is what promotes a culture where taboo ideas can be sanely discussed. Your proposal would cut Slashdot off at the knees, for the sake of being able to live in your own bubble.
I'd like to bash the submitter. Command shells less useful my ass. Pretty much the entire *nix world is built around shells and files, with variations on a theme thrown in (pipes, sockets, etc.). Welcome to what the rest of us have known for decades.
It's not a bad idea to place a time limit on laws. That will really emphasize repassing the ones that matter (e.g, not murdering people, or not hauling them off without a warrant to be tried in absentia in a secret court under secret laws). I'd like to see it also applied per clause or something, so we don't simply repass The Big Book of Laws Law. Also, tying it to a person's lifetime is unsafe. Think of the corporations!
Last time I remember seeing a piece on here, lots of people screamed at you: USE THE JOURNAL. Stop putting blog posts on/.'s front page. Link to your goddamn journal if you want to use Slashdot as hosting. Furthermore, this entire thing is Winbloze-centric, on a site populated by huge amount of people who use other OSes. Back to CNET or whichever hellhole you came from. Would someone please delete his account?
You give science a bad name. First, *nothing* is ever absolutely proven. Proving an event is taken formally to mean (in 5 year old speak) "we think we observed something, assuming our equipment--brain included--was indeed doing what we thought it to be doing, because it changed in this way, and we have a hypothesis/theory/law that forms a logical model, and we believe it to be accurate and/or precise because of a high degree of correlation between predictions it makes and many such observations, but you can never be too sure."
Phew, that was long, but this is why we have shorthand, like "theory" and "law".
Years later, someone comes along and points out that things moving really fast don't behave the same way as things moving really slow. Damn Gravity, didn't we prove that? It must be disproven! No, it's not "proven", never was proven, and never will be. That's because Gravity is the term we give to a model that allows us to cope with reality. These models can be updated at will. The underlying reality (at least according to any model with scientific credibility thus far) doesn't seem to change on a whim, but it's also hard to fit an actual universe in a textbook or a lecture--so we use models.
Furthermore, all our models, of all our beliefs, are based on some form of axiom, an assumption, implicit or explicit. There is no proof at the end of the rainbow, just reality, and models of reality. The model is not the reality. If you consider the part of a model that is in fact "reality", it is a very very very very small subset of reality as a whole (when you consider the actual physical instantiation of a person's brain carrying the theory or the particles of a textbook). Reality, again, doesn't fit in a textbook real well, so we use models.
What planet do you live on? Plenty of corporations and schools mandate that you allow them to MITM you. Accept this certificate or don't use our network.
Try that in Mass and you might wind up getting arrested. By law, you have to stand there, holding the pump handle, and can't stuff something in there to keep it pumping. A small minority of gas stations still have those metal clips to let you do it, and some people stuff other things in there anyway, but it is in violation of the law to do it that way.
Where in the article did it say the car caught on fire? It sustained light smoke damage, and it appears that the fire happened at the wall, not at the Tesla side of things, indicating faulty house wiring to be highly likely. Also, take your FUD somewhere else, you shill. Gasoline cars have a worse record for fires per miles driven.
He cited figures from the National Fire Protection Association that 150,000 gasoline car fires occur per year. With 3 trillion miles driven per year, that works out to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven. The record for the Tesla Model S so far is 1 vehicle fire per 100 million miles driven. This means gasoline car drivers are at five times greater risk to car fires than are Model S drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in order to solve one thing you find personally inconvenient, you extrapolate and assume that all others in your vicinity share your opinion. Now, I share your opinion that phone usage during a movie is rude. I don't share your opinion that a jammer is a valid solution, because it also constitutes something which is not only obnoxious, but illegal to boot. Furthermore, it's obnoxious to a larger amount of people, and it's difficult to control exactly who you affect with it. It is, in essence, untargeted. A phone, at the very least, can be used on mute underneath a coat, in order to check a pager or text messages. Better still, I could take my phone outside the theater and use it--but wait, you're still jamming it.
Before you decide to shove your opinions down another's throat, especially by advocating illegal measures and vigilantism, perhaps you should stop to consider the broader ramifications of your response, rather than just the bits you find convenient.
Wow, that was bad. In a good way. But truly awful.
Adult supervision, like a 71 year old retired police captain who decides that murder is an appropriate response to non-lethal force?
And I think Bennett Haselton is one of the most obnoxious human beings alive for submitting blog entries to the front page and using /. as his personal soapbox without doing it the right way (use your journal, link to it. story does not belong in summay.) But, despite the immense annoyance and mental pain this causes me (hyperbole...), it wouldn't justify shooting him, not even if he threw popcorn at me.
Citation needed. That would be a dramatic departure from every other report linked to so far. It would, in fact, make the shooting justified, where it currently appears to be completely unjustified.
Libraries, not frameworks.
Was skiing off-piste, lost his balance, and crashed. Speed was found to be not an issue, and the gear was also found to be not faulty. Moral of the story: don't push yourself past your limits, and if you do, expect to take the good with the bad. Practice in safe environments and work up to the riskier stuff. I'm a former competitive cyclist, and also a motorcyclist (and cage driver). But while I don't wear a helmet during normal cycling, non-race, you sure as hell won't find me on a motorcycle without a full face helmet.
I HAVE gone down at 25+ MPH, being a former competitive cyclist. I've also smacked my head and face off stuff, and I've got the ugly mug (stitches and dental work and scars) to prove it. And you know what? The primary cause of crashing is: lack of attention/recklessness. There have been virtually no situations in my lifetime where being more observant/less reckless would not have prevented the crash. I've yet to mangle a helmet, but I've sure crashed a lot. The real point of impact in most crashes, at reasonable speeds, on a bicycle, is your hands and elbows, not your head. I've also seen a guy wearing a helmet go off the side of a course; I've seen a guy slide under a guardrail. Both wore helmets. I think the guy who slid under the guard rail (40+ MPH downhill, in the rain, at Green Mountain Stage Race) died. I was too busy trying to keep up with the rest of the pack. The other guy, last I recall, he was being backboarded and medevac'd.
Moral of the story: a helmet does not eliminate your obligation to maintain situational awareness. A helmet will not magically save your life. Prudence and awareness will save your life more often than a helmet.
Amendment, I've been smacked in the head TWICE outside of a race. Had a guy open a car door right into my handlebars on the way home from work one night. Bike tipped up, edge of the car door banged me right down the middle of the face. Helmet wouldn't have helped much, if any. It'd be better to have protection for the things you actually injure during a crash (I've skinned my hands and arms I don't even know how many times...).
I (a former competitive cyclist) have been in many bicycle accidents. Never muffed up a helmet. My instinct when crashing forward is to duck and roll (harder to do when clipped in, that's how I snapped my collarbone during a race. Hit a mud patch, front wheel stuck, bike rotated around it, and slammed my head into the ground. But, I also wouldn't dive into a mud patch like that outside of a race...). The head is protected, at the cost of anything else being damaged. Arms up around the head. I've skinned everything else, but I've only smacked my head once (outside a race), and that was from slamming into a concrete barrier at night, going 20 MPH. It had been placed across a trail I frequented, and there was no warning about the new presence of this object. That one did injure my face (lots of stitches and some dental work), but a helmet wouldn't have done a damn thing--nothing covered by a helmet was so much as nicked. The bike was junk though...
Been smacked in the head with a car door, been backed into, crashed into a concrete block, flipped over many times, superman'd a couple times, nearly run off the road by a sherrif's van, and quite a few other incidents. Okay, full disclosure: I used to race (bicycles) competitively. But you know what's funny is that all the major accidents I've been in happened on the street--not at a race--where helmets aren't mandatory for adults here. The key factor in my not winding up more seriously injured (okay, I've snapped my collarbone, DURING a race) in most of these was paying attention. Luck plays a role, but not as large a role as being aware of your surroundings at all times. I was taught to always assume the people around you will do the stupidest possible thing and it's YOUR responsibility to avoid getting hit. I don't wear a helmet (used to during races, a requirement), not saying that should apply to everyone, but a helmet is not a necessary instrument to survive. It makes it easier for people who disregard their obligation to pay attention to survive. The people I've seen get seriously injured during cycling? Lack of attention or recklessness is the #1 cause. Going too fast on ice? Bad idea. Assuming you'll win vs a car, even if the law is on your side? Bad idea. Knowing what your skill level is and acting accordingly, while always maintaining 360 degree awareness? Good idea.
Cue the flames about how I'm clearly a moron.
A filter removes a portion of something. You filter out things. Phone cameras don't use an RGB filter. That would defeat the point of having a camera. If we assume it takes 2 discrete filters to remove IR and UV, RGB filters would add another 3 (assuming we kept the same constraints, one per narrowly defined band, which we need not do in reality). Would it cost more to manufacture a sensor which detects all of them? No. They generally do that just fine anyway. Hence the filters. Would it cost more to have specific sensor elements detect different bands, for a multi-megapixel sensor? Yes.
But I'm intrigued, are you suggesting that solar radiation never poses a risk under any circumstances?
Obvious trollbait is obvious.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Yeah, fuck you too, but this guy never listens. What an arrogant douchecock. The ONLY person who seems to get away with this BS. How many blowjobs did that cost you, samzenpus?
I think you should learn to use the filters, but you'd really be doing yourself a disservice. Anonymity is what allows people to post controversial opinions and hold debates on taboo subjects to the benefit of all. This may be a US-centric website, but we welcome all kinds. Not everyone shares your freedoms, or even agrees that you still have real freedom, when anonymity is a necessary cornerstore of free spech. More to the point, the fact that Slashdot is uncensored (in the sense that things are not removed wholesale unless they break the reading experience) is what promotes a culture where taboo ideas can be sanely discussed. Your proposal would cut Slashdot off at the knees, for the sake of being able to live in your own bubble.
I'd like to bash the submitter. Command shells less useful my ass. Pretty much the entire *nix world is built around shells and files, with variations on a theme thrown in (pipes, sockets, etc.). Welcome to what the rest of us have known for decades.
It's not a bad idea to place a time limit on laws. That will really emphasize repassing the ones that matter (e.g, not murdering people, or not hauling them off without a warrant to be tried in absentia in a secret court under secret laws). I'd like to see it also applied per clause or something, so we don't simply repass The Big Book of Laws Law. Also, tying it to a person's lifetime is unsafe. Think of the corporations!
Last time I remember seeing a piece on here, lots of people screamed at you: USE THE JOURNAL. Stop putting blog posts on /.'s front page. Link to your goddamn journal if you want to use Slashdot as hosting. Furthermore, this entire thing is Winbloze-centric, on a site populated by huge amount of people who use other OSes. Back to CNET or whichever hellhole you came from. Would someone please delete his account?
There's a Heinlein story to this effect, All you zombies.
FTFY
FLUFFY
(Fixed that for ya, damn Muphry got youse again!)
You give science a bad name. First, *nothing* is ever absolutely proven. Proving an event is taken formally to mean (in 5 year old speak) "we think we observed something, assuming our equipment--brain included--was indeed doing what we thought it to be doing, because it changed in this way, and we have a hypothesis/theory/law that forms a logical model, and we believe it to be accurate and/or precise because of a high degree of correlation between predictions it makes and many such observations, but you can never be too sure."
Phew, that was long, but this is why we have shorthand, like "theory" and "law".
Years later, someone comes along and points out that things moving really fast don't behave the same way as things moving really slow. Damn Gravity, didn't we prove that? It must be disproven! No, it's not "proven", never was proven, and never will be. That's because Gravity is the term we give to a model that allows us to cope with reality. These models can be updated at will. The underlying reality (at least according to any model with scientific credibility thus far) doesn't seem to change on a whim, but it's also hard to fit an actual universe in a textbook or a lecture--so we use models.
Furthermore, all our models, of all our beliefs, are based on some form of axiom, an assumption, implicit or explicit. There is no proof at the end of the rainbow, just reality, and models of reality. The model is not the reality. If you consider the part of a model that is in fact "reality", it is a very very very very small subset of reality as a whole (when you consider the actual physical instantiation of a person's brain carrying the theory or the particles of a textbook). Reality, again, doesn't fit in a textbook real well, so we use models.
What planet do you live on? Plenty of corporations and schools mandate that you allow them to MITM you. Accept this certificate or don't use our network.
Nope, they're printed using PLA on giant RepRaps. ;)
Try that in Mass and you might wind up getting arrested. By law, you have to stand there, holding the pump handle, and can't stuff something in there to keep it pumping. A small minority of gas stations still have those metal clips to let you do it, and some people stuff other things in there anyway, but it is in violation of the law to do it that way.
He cited figures from the National Fire Protection Association that 150,000 gasoline car fires occur per year. With 3 trillion miles driven per year, that works out to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven. The record for the Tesla Model S so far is 1 vehicle fire per 100 million miles driven. This means gasoline car drivers are at five times greater risk to car fires than are Model S drivers.